fast home NAS

"mike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ipnnj7$v7e$(E-Mail Removed)...
> tg wrote:

> Why not just put the usb drives on one of the computers and share 'em on
> the
> network?

that's a good solution but expensive, it means having a pc running all the
time, which burns up juice and pushes the electricity bill beyond
financially sensible. Whereas a desktop nas runs off a tiny trickle.

"tg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ipoob6$58p$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> "GT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4dbfce75$0$1646$c3e8da3$(E-Mail Removed) b.com...
>> "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:ipn0kp$40q$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> Exactly - and use that old motherboard and CPU combo that's lying around
>> from the last upgrade...
>
> I've got loads of those lying around but they eat up electricity, way more
> than a dedicated NAS. It isn't financially sensible and I'm struggling to
> pay the bills as it is...

I've got an old SocketA MB with an Athlon 2400 sitting on my desk here. I've
turned down the voltage and FSB on the CPU by a fair bit. Forgotten how
much, but the heat output has gone from 65w to less than 30w and its cool
enough to run it without a cooling fan - just a decent heatsink. I have a
fanless graphics card and a silent PSU. All old spares. I rather suspect the
draw would be similar to any NAS. I have not yet connected a screen in order
to set everything up, but that's my next plan - time permitting!

Incidentally - could such a setup run without a graphics card? Would it
POST?

tg wrote:
>
>
> "mike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ipnnj7$v7e$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> tg wrote:
>
>> Why not just put the usb drives on one of the computers and share 'em on
>> the
>> network?
>
> that's a good solution but expensive, it means having a pc running all the
> time, which burns up juice and pushes the electricity bill beyond
> financially sensible. Whereas a desktop nas runs off a tiny trickle.

Yep, all depends on your usage patterns. If you frequently require
large data
transfers at high speed to non-computer devices with ethernet
connections at times when
it's impractical to have a computer running, this won't work for you.

If your requirements do not include instant access, wake-on-lan
can mitigate the power usage. Haven't used it recently, but today,
you may be able to wake from sleep and reduce the startup time.
Think I'll try a few experiments on a laptop.

People are doing interesting things with router firmware.
Google tomatousb.

Every time I've considered taking some function out of the computer
and putting it externally, I've come back with the analysis that
it's more costly and more hassle for little benefit.
A thumb drive in my pocket serves 99% of my data storage needs. YMMV.

But, you're allowed to want what you want.
There exist media servers that connect storage to the network.

http://www.mrt-communication.com/NAS-R104.htm
claims 10MB/s

On 3/05/2011 8:38 PM, tg wrote:
>
>
> "Gorby" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:eoIvp.3331$(E-Mail Removed) nd.com...
>> On 2/05/2011 11:51 PM, tg wrote:
>>
>> I am currently using a "NetDISK" from Iocell, over a Gigabit ethernet.
>
> thanks, and what data speeds are you getting with this device?
I've just been playing with transferring a 1.5 Gig file from my internal
SATA2 to the external NDAS disk (also a SATA2 drive).

I get about 50MB/sec transfer rates. The transfer rates were taken using
the Drives Monitor gadget written by Hans Olav Norheim.

What I like about Netdisks is that they appear as internal drives,
however they don't appear on any network sweeps, so more secure.